Again, for the record, I plan to go FX this year, so fanboy of what ? Could be that you are a blind fanboy of FX ?

You must be really blind, how else could I explain your attitude and all the rubbish you write here ? I specifically said the FX combo will be better in IQ, but you obviously cannot read very well.

Don't pretend that 16mm ultra wide is the same as 18mm ultra wide. In UWA any mm makes a huge difference. You compare the 70-300mm VR with the 70-300mm G PLASTIC, really ?

And the most important thing, why do you compare slower lenses on FX ? That cancel any ISO advantage, and in many cases the resolution advantage, so what's the point again ?

Take my example, I want to go FX for the advantages I already pointed out. Now if I use your recommended lenses, I'm in the same place as with DX. It's obvious even for a 5 year old (are you more then 5?) that to get an advantage in noise, resolution and DOF control, I have to use lenses at least with the same aperture and quality as with DX. If I only get ,,equivalent,, lenses, I'm stuck with the same performance as with DX. Now I really want to see your comment to the above.

Now seriously, it's something wrong with you ? For the life of me I cannot explain how you don't understand a few basic facts.

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models.

not at all. the sigma 17-35 HSM is reputed to be a sharp lens. what I am saying is although there are no direct comparison of the two around it is still pretty safe to say the sigma is going to provide more resolution on FF than tokina on aps-c

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) - Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

I'm always amazed that a person having a child on the way and presumably about to incur lasting financial obligation is about to spend what seems to be such a hefty sum on a camera system to simply "take shots of said child" ...

Right. Because taking photos of "said child" is a much lower priority task, with less lasting value, than say, photographing birds in flight or chimps at the Zoo. To put it another way: what, exactly, is wrong with wanting the best camera to record precious, fleeting memories with "said child"? If the OP can afford the best for "said child", including a nice, safe crib, why not a nice camera?

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) - Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.

so worst case scenario the Sigma gives you the same resolution as the tokina but is cheaper. right?

Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) is only one attribute makes FF images sharper, there are obviously other attributes at play. you are taking things out of context by holding it to be an absolute rule.

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) - Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.

so worst case scenario the Sigma gives you the same resolution as the tokina but is cheaper. right?

Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) is only one attribute makes FF images sharper, there are obviously other attributes at play. you are taking things out of context by holding it to be an absolute rule.

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

Please respond to everyone's input, it is incredibly rude to post a broad question and not respond to those who are trying to help you out with more specific questions. At the same time letting this thread get flooded with endless minutae technical discussion that will probably have no meaning for someone at your level anyway.

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

you should read posts in their totality. following that passage i also wrote:

But when compared to FX lens it is very difficult for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

I did not write

But when compared to FX lens it is impossible for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

you should read posts in their totality. following that passage i also wrote:

But when compared to FX lens it is very difficult for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

I did not write

But when compared to FX lens it is impossible for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

You first said that a specific FX lens is better than the Tokina. Then you made a general statement that it is difficult to for Tokina to beat any FX lens. So, you opened the possibility that the Tokina could be better than some FX lenses. These are separate statements, first a specific comparison and second a comparison with the whole body of FX lenses. The second statement is not controversial because terms like 'difficult' can span a wide range of conditions and overall larger formats produce better lens performance. And thus, I did not criticise your second statement.

The D7100 has ,,pixels,, roughly twice as small than the D600. That means a lens should be able to resolve twice the resolution on the D7100 to get you the same resolution as on the D600. Some lenses can, most lenses cannot really, but that doesn't mean they are twice as bad, only if their maximum resolution would be 24MP on FX. That would make them useless on a D800 or any future cameras. So there are lenses that get you same resolution on both cameras, some that will do better on the D600, some will come very close, and some that will be rubbish on both cameras.

But lens resolution is not everything. In fact many agree that is not even the most important thing. Good lenses have many qualities over cheap lenses. They have much better separation (not DOF), nice colours, micro contrast, bokeh quality etc, edge performance. They also have better T-Stop, which means they let more light in than cheaper lenses, even at the same aperture. And there is also the mechanical build, durability, the autofocus, how manual focus works etc.

That's why Ultimitsu is plain wrong. He said that an old, second hand, cheap, plastic, low-end, amateur level third party lens is better than a pro level high quality lens, just because you mount it on FX. That is just rubbish.

I used the FX Nikon D700 and the DX Nikon D300. Yes the D700 was a better camera in IQ, but only if you mounted the same lenses. I borrowed a sigma 28-70mm and it was rubbish on both bodies. The same with a Tamron 70-200mm. Had a 70-300mm VR and borrowed a Nikon 70-200mm. The D300 + 70-200mm f/2.8 combo was blowing away the D700 + 70-300mm VR combo in every way. The 70-200mm f/2.8 had much better edges and less vignetting on DX, and it was about the same in the centre. But you did get about 1.5 stops of low light performance from the D700.

Also worth mentioning the FX only have an advantage in low light if you can afford to lose DOF. For example I was shooting my two kids at my house yesterday. After a few shots I realised I would need at least f/4 on DX to get them both in focus. FF would not help in this situation, because I would need to stop down to f/5.6 to get the same DOF. So FF would have no advantage if you need DOF. What helped a lot was a SB-900 remotely triggered.

The biggest flaw in the argument is that not everyone requires the equivalence (that one really seems to be popular lately) of FX on DX. Not everyone needs to work at large apertures with razor thin dof. Not everyone needs the extra ~stop of low light performance. Many of us want more dof and that is what constrains us.

As you noted, it's not much good to shoot in low light at a large aperture if you're trying to capture a street scene where you want as much dof as possible. In many cases, FX loses it's benefit here because you need to stop down an additional stop to get the same dof. Many of the cheaper lenses are horrible on the edges too when shot wide open and you have to stop down if you need good edge-edge sharpness anyway.

I needed a second body recently and after much consideration i ended up getting the D7100 over the D600. I would have picked up a D700 but couldn't find one at the time. Why did I buy the D7100? Not because of price but because I felt that by buying the D600 I was giving up too many features just to get a larger sensor and it wasn't worth it to me. I'd love to have a D800E but at this time, it doesn't make sense for me to spend 3x the price of a D7100.

I'm somewhat amused at how long people have said lenses are better on DX because the DX is using the "sweet spot" and within the last 6 months we've changed to saying that DX needs much better lenses than FX because of the higher pixel density.

FX and DX both have benefits and there is no reason that they have to be equivalent; not being equivalent means that in many cases, DX is cheaper.

The biggest flaw in the argument is that not everyone requires the equivalence (that one really seems to be popular lately) of FX on DX.

But the rest of your argument is based on equivalent conditions.

Not everyone needs to work at large apertures with razor thin dof. Not everyone needs the extra ~stop of low light performance.

It isnt always about needs, it is also about wants, FF gives you that option.

Many of us want more dof and that is what constrains us.

what you mean more DOF? it is pretty easy to get infinite DOF for wide angle lenses.

In many cases, FX loses it's benefit here because you need to stop down an additional stop to get the same dof.

no Dr or resolution benefit if you are on base iso.

Many of the cheaper lenses are horrible on the edges too when shot wide open and you have to stop down if you need good edge-edge sharpness anyway.

Exactly, so with FF you may well end up saving money because you stop down the cheap lenses to get sufficient DOF

I needed a second body recently and after much consideration i ended up getting the D7100 over the D600. I would have picked up a D700 but couldn't find one at the time. Why did I buy the D7100? Not because of price but because I felt that by buying the D600 I was giving up too many features just to get a larger sensor and it wasn't worth it to me.

Why would you not have lost them if you got D700?

FX and DX both have benefits and there is no reason that they have to be equivalent; not being equivalent means that in many cases, DX is cheaper.

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

you should read posts in their totality. following that passage i also wrote:

But when compared to FX lens it is very difficult for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

I did not write

But when compared to FX lens it is impossible for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

You first said that a specific FX lens is better than the Tokina.

under a general rule.

Then you made a general statement that it is difficult to for Tokina to beat any FX lens. So, you opened the possibility that the Tokina could be better than some FX lenses.

that is when I said nothing specific about the sigma.

These are separate statements, first a specific comparison and second a comparison with the whole body of FX lenses.

I said nothing specific about the sigma. other than the fact that it is an FF lens and has larger image circle.

The second statement is not controversial because terms like 'difficult' can span a wide range of conditions and overall larger formats produce better lens performance. And thus, I did not criticise your second statement.

It is not about you did nto criticise the second statement, it is about you should read the first and second statement togather to understand the first statement was not meant as an absolute rule.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.